Judge's Role in Qualifying Facts and Legal Foundations

Extract

[...] It is therefore in the light of article 12 of the Civil Procedure Code that the judges have ruled. They have indeed taken over the second paragraph of the article proposed by the legislator: "It must give or restore their exact qualification to the facts and contentious acts without stopping at the name that the parties would have proposed for them.". Thus, they have made an exact application of the legislator's will. This obligation echoes the rule that the Court of Cassation is a judge of law and not of facts. [...]

[...] This pragmatic solution limits the role of the judge by highlighting the expertise of counsel in terms of legal argumentation. Ultimately, the Supreme Court judges structured the contours of the civil trial by clarifying the role of each of its actors. This balanced, pragmatic and clarifying solution fits into the wake of textual and jurisprudential evolutions. A decision in the wake of textual and jurisprudential evolutions The decree No. 98-1231 of December "amending the Code of Judicial Organization and the new Civil Procedure Code" is fundamental. [...]

[...] In addition, by this solution, legal security and the predictability of decisions are preserved. In fact, the dispute will only be based on what has been debated between the parties in the trial. Therefore, "judicial surprises" are largely limited. The denomination and foundation of the parties' requests therefore remain the exclusive affair of the parties." This two-step solution on the role of the judge in qualifying facts/acts and on the change of the denomination/legal basis of the requests is both balanced and in line with existing texts and jurisprudence. [...]

[...] In fact, according to it, the water pump and the radiator of the vehicle had already been replaced under the conventional guarantee. In addition, the necessary replacements of the seals do not suffice to prove the existence of latent defects. An appeal in cassation was then lodged by the buyer. In support of his grounds, he invoked the rule according to which the judge must give or restore their exact qualification to the litigious facts and acts "without stopping at the name given by the parties". [...]

[...] This judgment touches the heart of the balance of the trial in civil matters. In this case, a buyer, the plaintiff, acquired a used vehicle from Carteret automobiles on 22 February 2003. The sales contract contained a conventional 3-month warranty. On 20 August 2003, the buyer sued the seller, initially claiming the cost of restoring the vehicle, then a reduction in the sale price, and finally damages. Following a decision rendered in first instance, an appeal was lodged by the buyer. [...]